ILNews

Opinions - June 11, 2010

June 11, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Today’s Opinions

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Larz A. Elliott v. Rush Memorial Hospital, et al.
70A01-0911-CV-553
Civil. Affirms dismissal of Larz Elliott’s proposed medical malpractice complaint against Rush Memorial Hospital, Carrie Tressler, and Dr. Philip Kingma. Elliott had alleged battery and negligence with respect to the forced catheterization to retrieve a urine sample after a Rush County sheriff’s deputy transported him to Rush Memorial Hospital and represented a court order at the hospital to retrieve a blood sample and a urine sample. Finds trial court erred in concluding that the defendants enjoy complete statutory immunity from any civil liability related to his claims of battery and negligence, but also finds Elliot’s claims fall outside the parameters of the Medical Malpractice Act because he was not a “patient” of the defendants, and that his catheterization clearly was not for his own medical benefit.

Sam's East Inc. City of Greenwood Board of Zoning Appeals v. United Energy Corporation Inc. d/b/a Greenwood Sunoco
41A04-0909-CV-545
Civil. Affirms trial court’s reversal of the decision of the City of Greenwood Board of Zoning Appeals to issue a variance to Sam’s East Inc. to have a gas station near a Sam’s Club location in Greenwood. Since receiving approval for the gas station in 2005, Sam’s Club had encountered an environmental issue that delayed building plans, and the permit had expired before Sam’s constructed the gas station. After the permit expired, Sunoco built a gas station on property adjacent to Sam’s property. Shortly after, an ordinance was adopted that changed whether gas stations could be built in the area where Sam’s had previously received permission.

Cedar Mill Homeowners Association Inc. v. Patrick J. Bocian (NFP)
32A05-1001-SC-85
Civil. Affirms small claims court’s denial of Cedar Mill’s request for attorney’s fees.

Gregor W. King and Delores P. King v. Hamilton Southeastern Utilities Inc. (NFP)
29A05-0909-CV-527
Civil. Affirms amount of damages entered after a jury trial for the valuation of the Kings’ land affected by the acquisition of a temporary and permanent easement by eminent domain.

K.T. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-0912-EX-1266
Civil. Affirms decision of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development Unemployment Insurance Review Board affirming the decision of the administrative law judge to dismiss K.T.’s appeal as untimely.

J.S. v. J.M. and M.M. (NFP)
75A03-0911-CV-535
Civil. Affirms trial court’s order granting visitation with J.S. (mother)’s minor daughter C.G.M. to her paternal grandparents J.M. and M.M..

A.E. a/k/a A.S v. B.S. (NFP)
80A02-0909-CV-905
Civil. Reverses and remands trial court’s order emancipating A.E. (mother) and B.S. (father)’s 19-year-old son K.S. Also reverses and remands determination of arrearages on child support; and apportionment of partial arrearage to K.S.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT